April 3, 2016

On "Face the Nation" today, Dickerson introduced the interview saying: "We sat down with Mr. Trump on Friday at Trump Tower in New York, which has a very large indoor waterfall which you will hear in the background."

And, yes, indeed, the whole interview is conducted with loud running water in the soundtrack. Now, Trump has other places in Trump Tower to do interviews. He did his "Fox News Sunday" interview on the same day, in Trump Tower, in a quiet space in front of some lovely windows. Trump had to have wanted that sound effect. I'm guessing he's used to doing business next to that distracting waterfall and knows how to ignore it while it messes with the other person's hearing and concentration. (Perhaps it unsettles some people with a feeling of needing to go to the bathroom.)

Making a recording, Dickerson had to have been additionally distracted knowing that he was devoting all his effort into making what was going to be a decidedly inferior product. I thought I could hear the strain in Dickerson's voice as he soldiered on.

This happened on Friday. Was it an April Fool's joke and Dickerson lacked the nerve to demand decent accommodations? We were laughing at how absurd it was.

Anyway, you can check out the video recording here. And here's the transcript. I'll just call attention to a couple things that caught my ear.

First, abortion. Based on the confusion last week, Trump had to be ready for the abortion question — "What would you do to further restrict women's access to abortions as president?" — and he answered incoherently:

TRUMP: Well, look, I just -- I know where you're going. And I just want to say, a question was asked to me. And it was asked in a very hypothetical, and it was said illegal, illegal. I have been told by some people that was an older line answer and that was an answer that was given on the basis of an older line from years ago, very -- on a very conservative basis. But...

What does that mean — "an older line answer"? Dickerson breaks in to connect him to his "original answer... about punishing women":

TRUMP: But I was asked as a hypothetical, hypothetically, hypothetically. The laws are set now on abortion. And that's the way they're going to remain until they're changed.

Yes, it was a hypothetical. If there were no right to have an abortion, would Trump want a law that punished the woman? He'd said yes. Now, he's saying "The laws are set," because there is a right to abortion, but he's looking forward to a time when the laws are "changed." Dickerson pursued him on how much he'd like to see the law changed, and Trump got off the hook with a repetition of "the laws are set."

Dickerson tried asking Trump if abortion is "murder," and Trump was oddly coy: "I have my opinions on it, but I would rather not comment on it."

Dickerson pressed him: "You said you're very pro-life. Pro-life views it that it's abortion -- that abortion is murder."

Trump stayed weirdly coy: "But I do have my opinions on it. I would rather -- I just don't think it's an appropriate forum."

Dickerson tried again: "But you don't disagree with that proposition that it's murder?"

DICKERSON: There was reporting, at this meeting at the RNC, that you seemed a little upset with your own team's delegate operation, that they're not in this fight as much as they should be. Is that right?

TRUMP: That's false reporting...

A serious attack on the NYT.

... other than I mentioned that Louisiana, which really bothers me, because the people of Louisiana were amazing to me. I was not expected to win Louisiana. And I did look at my people. I said, well, wait a minute, folks. You know, we should have maybe done better, except I also said, I won the state, and I think there's a real legal consequence to winning a state and not getting as many delegates. That's nonsense. And you know what? Everyone agrees with me. Everyone agrees with me.

DICKERSON: Well, a lot of people in the game who know this game, who play it...

TRUMP: I don't care about the game. I care about the people. And when you go in and win a state, and then you don't get the delegates?

DICKERSON: One of the things you're saying...

TRUMP: Now, I got some. I go some. I got many, but I didn't get the number that I should be entitled to.

So Trump concentrates on the idea that he's entitled to delegates and that he shouldn't need to fight for them, shouldn't need to fight for his share of the delegates. Dickerson then asked a question that's similar to what I'd said when I read the NYT story.

I'd said: "Trump... presents himself as a businessman with a lifetime's worth of skill and savvy, and he offers to plug BUSINESSMAN into the role of President. He's got an awful lot of confidence that this will be a wonderful experience for us, that it will make America great again. But it looks as though the businessman had not yet noticed that the fight for delegates extends beyond the primary/caucus day and requires campaign people on the ground who know the local rules and how to play the game." And, in another post: "Trump has a lot of pride in his knowledge of how things work in the real world — how China is "killing us" in these trade deals, etc. etc. — other politicians are naive and he's the one man who can bring expertise in handling wily people who are trying to take advantage. But the real world of this delegate game has brought him up short. It must really hurt his pride, privately, and it hurts his image publicly."

So I noticed the resonance when Dickerson said:

DICKERSON: Your argument about the presidency is, you will come into a new system, learn about it fast, and win like nobody has ever won before. With this delegate fight, it's a new system, you got to get up to speed on it. Do you feel like you're going to win like never before, because Ted Cruz just took these delegates in Louisiana?

Trump just ignored the premise of the question and took to minimizing the losses in the fight for delegates — "John, you're talking about one state" — and switched to talking about how he's been winning in the primaries and how he's won so many more votes than Cruz and that's what should count at the convention.

In short, Dickerson got very little out of Trump. The old waterfall trick seems to have worked.

90 comments:

In fact, in all likelihood, there won’t be a single, bona fide Trump supporter in the Texas delegation, despite the fact that Trump won 48 of the state’s 155 delegates.

“There’s a pretty good chance that 155 of 155 delegates from Texas are going to be for (U.S. Sen.) Cruz,” said Steve Munisteri, the former Texas Republican chairman, who was a senior adviser to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign and is now neutral.

Trump did not say he would want punishment for the women; he said "there would have to be some," which, Professor, there would have to be unless the laws were witten to explicitly exempt the women from punishment.

What we have now is just that the prosecutors choose not to prosecute, which is not all that dfferent from Obama ordering the Border Patrol not to enforce the immigration laws.

"he answered incoherently" At the risk of being incoherent, yes and no. Bottom line: If the law prohibits x, should y doing x be punished? Yes. But the law is set not to prohibit x, so if is just a hypo. That's about as far as I'll go defending the Donald.

If he made Dickerhead uncomfortable, great. One point in Trump's column. Dickerson is nothing but a Dem operative.

There’s a pretty good chance that 155 of 155 delegates from Texas are going to be for (U.S. Sen.) Cruz,”

One more point in my reasons not to vote for Cruz. For somebody who claims to be so in tune with the ideas of the founders, he wants power too badly. Almost as badly as Hillary, but she doesn't pretend not to be an authoritarian.

On the other hand, Ly'ng Ted needs to get out of the race. There is an article on Drudge that says it will be mathematically impossible for him to get the requisite delegates by April 26, like it is now for the other idiot Kasich. But will he soldier on like a sore loser?

How can you trust anybody who lusts for power that strongly? The presidency should be an interchangeable kind of job for conservatives. We don't need a savior, just a competent chief executive. Cruz would serve the party far better as something other than a creepy candidate for POTUS.

The sincerely held faith in spontaneous conception instructed by "gods" from the twilight zone and their human representatives continues to be a controversial "social" issue.

So, what is the distinguishing characteristic between a mature and undeveloped/underdeveloped human life?

In point of fact, a human life does not meet the strict standard of viability until a decade or more past its conception. In fact, the multi-trillion dollar welfare system, and both its taxpayer and debt subsidized public and private cronies, is evidence that viability is not realized until well after birth or never.

When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain its basic human rights, including life, arms, and freedom from torture, decapitation, trafficking, and planning/cannibalism?

I don't think there should be punishment for the woman, but then I don't think there should be punishment for a parent whose child accidentally shoots himself with a gun or dies when not quite properly put in a car seat.But other people disagree with me.

So if the Supreme Court got out of the make shit up business, the only way to ban abortion at the federal level would be to use the necessary and proper clause power in aid of the commerce clause as Congress and W did with the partial birth abortion law. But if the Supreme Court got out of the make shit up business, then the lovers of big federal government wouldn't be able to regulate abortion. Only a progressive reading of the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause allows the federal government to regulate abortion.

It would be up to the states if and how they wanted to regulate abortion. So why are presidential candidates asked about abortion. The only questions to ask are where does the federal government get the power to regulate abortions that take place within one state? And can you think of any potential Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn Roe/Casey but who would also vote to uphold Congress power to regulate abortions?

I don't think there should be punishment for people who let their kids play at the playground alone.Or accidentally let their kids drink a Mike's Hard Lemonade at the ballpark.Or let their kids wait in the car while they run into the post office.

This is truly a false choice election, "who do you believe is the least worst leader for the next 4 years?". BTW, when news organizations let publicity seeking candidates lay the ground rules for where/how/when interviews are available, well Althouse readers can see where I was going with that. There's not a single candidate for President that I'd vote for my little town's city council. Oh, wait! I forgot John MacAfee on the Libertarian side, not only would he make a great city councilman but a superb county supervisor. I'd start going to meetings again just to hear him opine.SMOD's waiting for 2020 when all hope has truly died!

Meanwhile, out in the real world: "Mr. Trump is so negatively viewed, polls suggest, that he could turn otherwise safe Republican states, usually political afterthoughts because of their strong conservative tilt, into tight contests. In Utah, his deep unpopularity with Mormon voters suggests that a state that has gone Republican every election for a half-century could wind up in play." NYT trolling, sure, but still.

> If there were no right to have an abortion, would Trump want a law that punished the woman?<

is there a right not to be water boarded? and if you say yes and point to "cruel and unusual punishment, shouldn't women be held to the same standards. surely the baby at 9,8,7,6,5 ... months feels your fucking moral stupidity

If someone causes a woman to abort a fetus without her prior knowledge and consent, he (or she) will be prosecuted for murder, not for performing an abortion.

If the woman has prior knowledge and gave her consent, which of course is what we are talking about here, she is a willing accomplice to the commission of a crime, even if the crime is defined on the books only for performing an abortion.

I do not know of any other crimes where willing accomplices are not prosecuted along with the actual lawbreakers.

if trump gets really near 1237 and cruz is a distant second, he will get the nomination, much more if he actually gets 1237. the establishment will not steal this one from trump if those are the scenarios. because even lyin ted will not stand for the will of the people being negated by the will of the establishment, the donor class and lobbyists.

rcocean said...If Goldberg wants to talk about Trump's paid for abortions, I guess all his talk about vulgarity and gutter politics was pure moonshine.

I think we are just working up to a summer-long effort to prove to Ann Coulter that the GOP establishment really aren't the "pussies" as she recently claimed. We are going to show her just how cruelly ruthless we can be, in taking Trump out, and working to win in November.

I think we are just working up to a summer-long effort to prove to Ann Coulter that the GOP establishment really aren't the "pussies" as she recently claimed. We are going to show her just how cruelly ruthless we can be, in taking Trump out, and working to win in November.

if they or romney only showed that fire when taking down obama in 2012 or his executive amnesty.

While playing the delegate game is important, and playing the rhetorical game is important, there is a perceptual game that is important too. Trump is correct on that last score. The GOP will have a real problem if the media keeps reporting that Trump has won X state but then goes into the convention and all those delegates vote for someone else. The average low information voter doesn't give a damn about the delegates. If the perception lingers that somehow the nomination was stolen from Trump, well, as you are fond of saying Ann it doesn't matter if it is true, it's useful.

I now that some Republicans would prefer a "noble loss" (viz Cruz) than what the perceive to be an "embarrassing loss" via Trump but any perception that funny business was done at the convention to get the nominee is going to have long-term negative effects on the party. Trump represents a constituency. A sizable one. Whatever happens it can't be perceived that they were disrespected.

The press never shows Trump's massive rallies, they never move the cameras except to zoom in on protesters. The press reports on his statements inaccurately. They always take sound bites out of context. Why should Trump do the press any favors?

The abortion issue is a no win for Trump, thus all the contradictory statements. He's hoping for crossover votes from Independents and Democrats which he totally loses by pledging to eliminate legal abortion. Even if he doesn't intend to change the present law, he certainly can't run as pro-choice as a Republican.

Despite Cruz's condemnations of Trump's statement about punishment for the woman who gets an abortion, it turns out one of the leaders of Cruz's campaign on the abortion issue is Troy Newman. He's been president since 1999 of Operation Rescue which has targeted abortion clinics for closure, targeted abortion providers for harassment, celebrates the death of abortion providers, and defends murderers of doctors who perform abortions. Think he isn't in favor of punishing women to the full extent for capital murder? He believes the abortion doctors should be executed. He believes that eventually we will jail the women after abortion is banned. Here's a video linked to his webpage, Should Women Who Have Abortions Go to Jail?That's the "old line" (new line) pro-lifers don't want to talk about.

Isn't it funny how the mainstream media painted Trump as more extreme than Cruz on this issue?

The primary question is and remains, Who has the best shot at beating Hillary in November?

Everything else is bread and circuses. If you like Amnesty and Obamare, then vote Hillary or stay home. If you want Amnesty or Obamacare to have a shot at being overturned, then vote for the candidate who can best beat Hillary - even though you may be let down.

So, it's either Cruz or Trump. Both have positives, both have negatives. Trump seems to be the riskier. Doesn't control his thoughts and words. Hasn't had a position of authority, where he has to answer to anyone. He's used to calling the shots without questioning - which has worked for him in the private sector. Open question whether it will work at the Presidential stage.

Folks to need to focus on beating Hillary. Hoping for an indictment by Obama's DOJ ain't a strategy.

Prof. Althouse, "incoherently" is unkind. He very coherently expressed the necessary rebuttal to the over-truncated hatchet job quote excerpts: it was in the context of hypothetically, abortion being illegal. Agree that "older line" is weird, but it's certainly true that when Trump was first learning about the political issue in say the 70s, anti-abortion advocates got beaten badly with their lack of consideration for women-as-victims. So there probably *is* an older line of "pro-life" thinking, as well.

Trump isn't more extreme than Cruz on abortion or gay rights, far from it. Trump is merely desperately trying to pander to anti abortion and anti gay rights people and is so incompetant that he can't even get his talking points out without messing them up.

"[Troy]Newman has claimed that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and AIDS were both warnings from God about legal abortion in America and attributed a drought in California to the state’s liberal abortion laws, insisting that “weather patterns” and economic instability are connected to legal abortion."-------------"I am grateful to receive the endorsement of Troy Newman,” Cruz said. “He has served as a voice for the unborn for over 25 years, and works tirelessly every day for the pro-life cause. We need leaders like Troy Newman in this country who will stand up for those who do not have a voice.”~Ted Cruz

The LEAST concerning part of the whole Trump/abortion thing is what Donald Trump actually believes about abortion.

Nobody expects that Trump actually believes anything, about abortion. If one were to believe what Trump says about abortion, you'd need to have followed Trump from "strongly pro-choice" to absolutely "pro-life." Say what you want about Trump; just please don't try to convince me that Trump has any firm ideological beliefs about anything except his own image.

The real concern about Trump in this abortion flap is Trump's own complete incoherence, and his campaign's incompetence in preparing him for such issues. Trump has cratered with women. And with no hope of recouping his losses, as he prattles on about how he loves women and he will be the greatest president ever for women.

It could have been worse for Dickerson and his crew. Donald could have instructed them to set up in the 2nd Floor conference room which would have been difficult at best because T-Rump Tower has no floor numbered "2." There is a first floor and then the numbering jumps to the floor #5.

Anyone asking Trump about how many abortions he has paid for, should also ask Hillary how many abortions she has had (and how late they were). Read something the other day the claimed that she had had maybe three abortions before Chelsea, then had her daughter at the urging of her husband, who apparently talked about how that was necessary to rise in politics.

This whole Trump whine about the Louisiana delegates and how he won the vote in Louisiana and is, therefore, somehow entitled to the delegates that do not appear to be committed to him is just bullshit. Trump received 41.2% of the Louisiana Republican primary votes. So, how is he entitled, by some argument about democracy and the importance of voters' preferences to more than 41.2% of the delegates? That calculation would give him 19 delegates and he appears to have 18 committed so this is all about 1 delegate?

Of the Louisiana delegates, Rubio had enough voters to award him five. By what principle of democracy does Trump claim to have a right to any of those delegates? By what theory is it that the delegates pledged to Rubio should go to someone who has not demonstrated the ability to win the majority of Louisiana primary votes?

As for the five Louisiana delegates selected independently of the primary vote, whiners and wankers with the maturity level of fourteen-year-olds can complain about the undemocratic method by which they are selected and decide whom to back, but that horse left the barn years ago. Everyone considering running for president needed to make themselves aware of how the organizations select delegates and what has to be done to secure the delegate support necessary -- particularly in the case of a candidate like Trump who is almost assured of overwhelming defeat in November and the concurrent destruction of Republican Party influence from top to bottom.

Then consider the undemocratic way the delegates are allocated in states like South Carolina and Florida. In South Carolina, Trump got less that 1/3 of the votes. 2/3 of South Carolina voters preferred somebody other than Trump but Trump received 100% of the delagate allocation.

Bruce Hayden said...Anyone asking Trump about how many abortions he has paid for, should also ask Hillary how many abortions she has had (and how late they were). Read something the other day the claimed that she had had maybe three abortions before Chelsea, then had her daughter at the urging of her husband, who apparently talked about how that was necessary to rise in politics.

I might ask that, if Hillary Clinton were trying to win the Republican nomination. But she's not. I will start to concern myself with Hillary starting on about July 23.

Most GOP voters don't give a shit about abortion. Reagan signed the most permissive abortion law in the history of the US when he was California governor. Based on his experiences in Hollywood, it was the right thing to do.

"I think we are just working up to a summer-long effort to prove to Ann Coulter that the GOP establishment really aren't the "pussies" as she recently claimed. We are going to show her just how cruelly ruthless we can be, in taking Trump out, and working to win in November."

Romney was ruthless against Newt. Then he excluded Ron Paul from the convention and alienated the Tea Party by excluding everyone popular in that movement. Then he basically endorsed Obama during the general.

I can't wait to watch them kick your sorry asses out of the party. You can decide whether you want to support the inevitable Trump/Cruz ticket or not. But neither of them are going to give the vichy republicans the time of day.

chickelit said..."Raise your hand if you think it's a plus that one single candidate gets to name the "when and where" for a Sunday-broadcast MSM interview.

The rest of the media doormats should be so lucky."

This is why Trump is the best candidate. I recognize Cruz is more ideologically consistent and I started this season supporting him. But Trump makes the media dance to his tune.

Note that he still makes them dance to his tune. All of these polls and this depression in his support are bogus. He still drives the ratings. His support is from people the media hasn't ever and doesn't want to poll.

Raise your hand if you think it's a plus that one single candidate gets to name the "when and where" for a Sunday-broadcast MSM interview.

The rest of the media doormats should be so lucky.

This is my hand, firmly by my side rather than raised. I am sick and tired of Trump getting to phone in his interviews--- literally--- or have them on his own turf, like Trump Tower or his hotel under construction in DC. The media should have playing the game on his terms because they were pursuing ratings rather than being serious journalists. At least once Dickerson had Trump in front of the camera he did attempt to ask substantive questions and actually insisted on following up, to a greater degree than most have done. Yes, he threw in the towel too soon sometimes, but Trump does that to a questioner---- he filibusters with bluster and spouts the same nonsense over and over until you simply have to move on. Sorry, but it reminds me of Obama at a press conference, albeit with far less coherence to his answers. Why shouldn't Trump show up at a studio, whihc is neutral turf, to answer questions like everyone else? Why let him set the stage just because he can afford to jet in and out of new york? Kasich doesn't have the time or money to arrange his schedule to have interviews sitting in his governor's office in Columbus to remind everyone of his position as a popular governor of a key state, for example. And even if he did, the networks would balk--- they don't want to bother to send a crew to Columbus, Ohio. It's been that way the whole election cycle, another way Trump has been allowed to play by his own rules, saving his campaign a ton of money and generating the piles of 'free advertising' no one else can match. SOrry, chicklit, that is not something I feel like celebrating.

My own take on the tinkling water? It was a little "F-U" power move to make Dickerson have to deal with it, indeed, but I think it was also a way to have yet another constant reminder during the segment that they were in trump's yuge tower, which he considers opulent but others describe as tacky. It's like the way he wants shots of his airplane when he travels. Anything to remind the masses they should vote for him because he's a very rich man. It's all about the razzle dazzle, but there's no steak with that sizzle, sadly.

Why should Trump show up at a studio like a child sent to the principal's office? The interviewer is a guy working for a company that sells advertising for toilet paper and people who are running for office are supposed to kowtow to them?

Just because it became a habit, bunkie, doesn't mean that everyone has to play along.

If the MSM thinks they are more important than candidates for office why not cut our the middle man and have NBC run the country? I, for one, enjoy the eff-you power move. It's positioning and people love it although the people who still don't get it may wonder what's going on.

Talking about the Louisiana Delegates, i have started fashioning myself as a low information voter, only paying attention to the headlines. Trump may lose some somehow?Its an interesting concept to have to fight for something you have already won, which is what i am hearing. It wont play very well with simple folks, of which i am also one.Like Clint Eastwood said in Josie Wales, don't piss on my back and tell me its raining.

The abortion question trips up pro-lifers all the time because they get caught up in the "if it's murder, then shouldn't we treat women having abortions as murderers?" scenario. It's avoidable, if you treat abortion as a "wrong" but not equivalent to murder, or even if you accept that it's murder but allow that it's unique in that the "murderer" has the victim inside her body and so perhaps abortion could be made illegal without criminalizing it (as drug use is in some places). It would still have the effect of removing the state sanction and greatly reduce the number of abortions (or maybe have more doctors decide they're "medically necessary") but you wouldn't have to endure trials for the aborters.

However, a seasoned pol can flip the question by pointing out that right now, this country allows abortions for any reason--sex selection, racial bigotry--and at any time, including a day before the due date. The pol could point out that the media doesn't seem to be asking the pro-choice candidates how they can condone partial birth abortion, or having no parental notice for minors having abortion when those same minors need parental permission to get an ear pierced. The pol could also point out that their goal is to reduce the number of abortions and they don't wish to see anyone in jail.

Trump though displayed the dangers of the "don't think about it ahead of time, just shoot from the hip and backtrack later" strategy. Get used to this, it's going to be a long season.

Fred Rawlings, not sure if you are sincere in saying you are a low-information voter or just striking a rhetorical pose, but this is exactly the audience to which Trump is pitching his criticism, which is bunk, of the Louisiana process. As Chacarro laid out so well, no one is STEALING delegates from Trump. There is no reason for him to be handed delegates he didn't earn just because he whines and because he got the most votes in the primary voting. It was NOT winner-take-all. Most of the delegates were apportioned based on the outcome of that voting. And he got the delegates he earned with that win. So did others who finished behind him in the voting, including Rubio. Now Trump thinks Rubio delegates should be handed to him because Rubio is not actively in the race and Trump is? Bologna. And the other delegates chosen by different criteria, as had been the plan all along, do not "belong" to him either. Influencing delegate selection is as much a part of the process as gaining votes in primaries, not some new twist the Republican party has introduced in order to trip Trump up. But he knows that screaming "democracy" will attract attention of those not following along closely and cause them to think, "our man is getting cheated," when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Chuck said...We are going to show her just how cruelly ruthless we can be, in taking Trump out, and working to win in November.

Chuck my man isn't that a bit like saying "President Obama's not a weakling, look how he attacks Republicans!" while ignoring his lack of action against America's enemies? I mean, it's nice to show some spine, but when you only show spine in attacking someone (nominally) within your own party...I dunno, Ann Coulter might not give you too much credit for that.

Now I know, I know, NR has attacked Obama plenty, but by the same token the Obama Admin has dropped lots of bombs. It's a matter of attitude or apparent zeal, and on those counts NR and some on the Right resemble Obama more than they'd like to admit, it seems.

"I mean, it's nice to show some spine, but when you only show spine in attacking someone (nominally) within your own party...I dunno, Ann Coulter might not give you too much credit for that."

Not that I care what Ann Coulter has to say about anything, as she's a professional troll and nothing more, but the fact is people often see the far greater threat as the one coming from within. Bolsheviks were far more threatened by other socialist groups than they were by royalist or democratic groups.

Likewise, if Trump were running as a Democrat, you'd hear far less from the usual Trump critics on the Right (NRO, or any group that now is called "establishment" simply because they oppose Trump, as though favoring Trump as Hannity and Newt do somehow makes them 'non-establishment') about him. Why? Because they'd be thrilled that the Dems are the ones being tarred by association with him, and even might nominate him. Just as the Dems are giddy right now, when they should instead be worried about nominating someone as unelectable as Hillary. The thing is, even Hillary is electable against Trump.

Ann: Why should Trump (or anyone) need to "fight for" the delegates that they won fair and square? It's ridiculous and if it is the case, we need to abolish the political parties. They put the lie to the treasured meme that "anyone can grow up to be President" in the US.

"The pol could point out that the media doesn't seem to be asking the pro-choice candidates how they can condone partial birth abortion..."

Brando, yesterday, Chuck Todd on MTP did ask Hillary about late term abortion and she indicated that she did not agree with late term abortion, but did accept the need for exceptions, as do the many Americans. She spoke eloquently when answering Todd's abortion questions, huge contrast to the way Trump fun bumbles any difficult question that is posed to him.

Hagar wrote:If someone causes a woman to abort a fetus without her prior knowledge and consent, he (or she) will be prosecuted for murder, not for performing an abortion.

Yes exactly. Pro choicers should answer this question. Are they ok with men being charged for these crimes considering they think what is being killed is really just a clump of cells and/or a parasite? We should charge men with murder for killing parasites?

Brando said...but the fact is people often see the far greater threat as the one coming from within. Bolsheviks were far more threatened by other socialist groups than they were by royalist or democratic groups.

Sure, of course, but I think it's useful to contrast the "establishment" Right's reaction w/r/t Trump VOTERS to how they treated fringe candidates/groups in the past. Consider that when they wrote the Birchers out of the Right they were alienating a relatively small group. When they attack, vilify, and/or condescend to Trump voters now...well, they're really saying that a huge portion of the people who consider themselves on the Right really aren't.

It's a bit like comparing lopping off a wart with amputating both legs. You lose something of yourself in both procedures, but not only is there a large qualitative difference between the two but also there's a chance one might just be fatal to you.

"Brando, yesterday, Chuck Todd on MTP did ask Hillary about late term abortion and she indicated that she did not agree with late term abortion, but did accept the need for exceptions, as do the many Americans. She spoke eloquently when answering Todd's abortion questions, huge contrast to the way Trump fun bumbles any difficult question that is posed to him."

First of all, when republicans pose restrictions for late terms abortions, democrats constantly argue against those restrictions. So, the idea that they would in fact support said restrictions is dubious.Second, a lot of pro-choicers said she made a gaffe because she described the fetus as a baby/child/person.

"“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.”

Ah, so its a person? And a child? A person has inherent rights. we dont kill children. So, how eloquent was she, really?

"Diana Arellano, manager of community engagement for Planned Parenthood Illinois Action, said Sunday that Mrs. Clinton’s comments undermined the cause for abortion rights.

The comment “further stigmatizes #abortion,” Ms. Arellano said in a tweet. “She calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions.”

(cont) so I would ask pro-choicers Do you think that Hillary is undermining abortion rights by calling for restrictions? or are you for no restrictions even when it comes to late term abortions?Who is the extremist here? I can just imagine a Dickerson or a Matthews asking a nancy pelosi "you think there should be NO restrictions even in a late term abortion'? Well, actually I dont because most reporters assume that default pro-choice position. Which, as the spokesman for PP mentioned, suggests that even restrictions on late term abortions is undermining the cause for abortion rights.

HillDozer: "I do not agree with late-term abortion." Interviewer: "Should it be illegal?" HillDozer: "Well that's something we should look at, but of course there are exceptional cases and we have to respect women and allow for those rare situations."

Media: what a thoughtful, eloquent response--such a compassionate, intelligent woman!

Typical Pro-Lifer: "I do not agree with late-term abortion." Interviewer: "So you think it's murder and should be illegal." TPL: "Well there probably need to be laws against it except in very exceptional cases, yes." Interviewer: "Oh, so you'd put women in jail and punish women for choices they make about their own bodies and health." TPL: "I didn't say that--is there a question?" Interviewer: "No, I think we can all see what a monster you are, thanks."

With the level of proof and evidence being bandied about here regarding which candidate is hiding abortions (I'm looking at you Amanda), why not ask the obvious question of whether Hillary had abortions? She only let one child through the chute -- maybe she took one look at Bill's behavior and said "no way Jose -- I'm even going to change my sexual orientation on you for good measure."

You see how ugly things get when you start relying on innuendo, Amanda?

The problem is that human life begins its evolution in a liberal state, and as we mature learn to regulate our behavior. For practical reasons, "repent and sin no more" is the best possible outcome we can expect.

Reconciliation of individual dignity and intrinsic value with natural imperatives is a hard problem.

Blogger Bruce Hayden said...Anyone asking Trump about how many abortions he has paid for, should also ask Hillary how many abortions she has had (and how late they were). Read something the other day the claimed that she had had maybe three abortions before Chelsea, then had her daughter at the urging of her husband, who apparently talked about how that was necessary to rise in politics.

4/3/16, 10:58 PM

FYI. My comment about Trump and his wives' ( reported) abortions was in response to this comment. See how this works?